AMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2013 (State vs. Amar and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 404 of 2012, under section 376 IPC, PS Akbarpur, district Kanpur Dehat, whereby the accused Jaipal was acquitted for the charge under section 376 IPC and the accused Amar was convicted and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default stipulation. The accused was also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the victim, failing which, he shall further undergo one year additional imprisonment.

(2.) Filtering out the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that the informant herself lodged an FIR stating that she is resident of Akbarpur, district Ramabai Nagar and is student of class-10. In the intervening night of 24/25.06.2012, she was sleeping in the veranda in front of her house, at about 4 O'clock in the night her neighbour Amar, son of Ram Babu, came quietly and caught hold of her hand, pressed her mouth and dragged her in the room and raped her after breaking the tape of her Salwar. Somehow she managed to get her mouth opened and shouted, her family members came from the roof and raised alarm, on which Amar got up and ran outside. His head banged against from of the door (Chaukhat) and his head started bleeding. Blood was lying on the spot. The whole incident was narrated by the informant to her family members, who could not go to the police station to lodge an FIR due to fear. On the next day FIR was lodged. Investigation was entrusted to PW-6, Atar Singh on 25.06.2012. On that day, he copied the written report in the case diary. He recorded the statement of Constable Moharrir 43, Raj Bahadur Singh. He further recorded the statement of victim, copied the medical report, which was received from lady constable Sunita Kumari and Monika Patel with the aid of the lady constable and the informant. The spot was inspected. The site plan was prepared, which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-9. During investigation, in presence of Sushila Devi, Ranjeet, the Investigating Officer collected bloodstain and plain earth, it was sealed and memo was prepared, which was signed by Sushila Devi and Ranjeet. This witness has proved it as Ext. Ka-10. The clothes of the victim were taken into possession by this witness, which were stained. The clothes were sealed and its memo was prepared. This memo was proved by this witness, which was previously Exhibited as Ka-3. After that the statements of mother of the victim, namely, Sushila Devi, her father Chhotey Lal were recorded. The victim was sent for medical examination. The accused was arrested and his statement was recorded. The underwear worn by the accused, which was stained with blood was taken into possession and sealed and its memo was prepared, which was proved as Ext. Ka-11. After that the accused was also sent for medical examination, which medical report was copied in the case diary. The statement of Dinesh was recorded on 27.06.2012. On 29.06.2012 the pathology report and supplementary medical report of the victim was copied in the case diary. On 02.07.2012, the victim was sent with lady Constables for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded by the court on 03.07.2012. It was copied in the case diary, which was perused by this witness. After that the accused Jaipal was apprehended. The statements of witnesses Chhotey Lal, Sushila Devi, Ranjeet and Constable Ravindra Kumar were recorded. On 03.08.2012 the material exhibits were sent to the forensic laboratory for examination. The docket was proved as Ext. Ka-12. Further this witness recorded the statement of Dr. Archana Srivastava, Constable Nishat Ali. The statement of accused was recorded in jail after obtaining permission from the court. The investigation ended into a charge sheet, which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-13.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. PW-1 is the victim, who has proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1 and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-2. PW-2 is Chhotey Lal, the father of the victim, who has proved the memo as Ext. Ka-3. PW-3 is Sushila Devi, the mother of the informant, who has also proved the memo regarding taking of possession of clothes of the victim. PW-4 is Constable 43, Raj Bahadur Singh, who scribed the chik report, which was proved as Ext. Ka-4. This witness further proved the copy of G.D. as Ext. Ka-5. PW-5 is Dr. Archana Srivastava, who medically examined the victim and found the following injuries on the body of the victim: